The purpose of this article is to understand the decision-making processes by assessment personnel when choosing instruments to evaluate students with learning disabilities. Eight school personnel responsible for the evaluation of students in Texas participated in face-to-face, semistructured interviews. The instruments chosen were based on a variety of factors including the personnel’s basic knowledge and training on the use of the instruments, the culture and climate of the district, and the overall characteristics of the child being tested. The findings of this study suggested that assessment personnel encounter many decisions when evaluating children with learning disabilities. Implications from this study include the need for frequent support in encouraging reflective thinking and assessment training for those responsible for the important decisions regarding the identification and placement of students who are learning disabled.
AkdereM. (2011). An analysis of decision-making process in organizations: Implications for quality management and systematic practice. Total Quality Management, 22, 1317–1330.
2.
AlfonsoV. C.LaRoccaR.OaklandT. D.SpanakosA. (2000). The course on individual cognitive assessment. School Psychology Review, 29, 52–64.
ArmisteadL. D.CastilloJ. M.CurtisM. J.ChappelA.CunninghamJ. (2013). School psychologists’ continuing professional development preferences and practices. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 415–432.
5.
BarrettC. A.CottrellJ. M.NewmanD. S.PierceB. G.AndersonA. (2015). Training school psychologists to identify specific learning disabilities: A content analysis of syllabi. School Psychology Review, 44, 271–288.
6.
BorovcnikM.KapadiaR. (2011). Determinants of decision-making in risky situations. In International statistical institute: Proceedings of the 58th world statistical congress (pp. 5503–5508). Retrieved from http://2011.isiproceedings.org/papers/950138.pdf
7.
CastilloJ. M.CurtisM. J.GelleyC. (2012). School psychology 2010—Part 2: School psychologists’ professional practices and implications for the field. Communique, 40, 4–6.
8.
CatyM.KinsellaE. A.DoyleP. C. (2016). Reflective practice in speech-language pathology: Relevance for practice and education. Canadian Journal of Speech-language Pathology & Audiology, 40, 81–91.
9.
ChafouleasS. M.Riley-TillmanT. C.EckertT. L. (2003). A comparison of school psychologists’ acceptability, training, and use of norm-referenced, curriculum-based, and brief experimental analysis methods to assess reading. School Psychology Review, 32, 272–281.
10.
ChappellJ. C.StephensT. L.KinnisonL.PettigrewJ. D. (2009). Educational diagnosticians’ understanding of phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, and reading fluency. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 24–33.
11.
CopeD. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41, 89–91. doi:10.1188/14.ONF.89-91
12.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards (7th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author.
13.
CrescenziA. (2016, July). Metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation in time-constrained information search. Short paper presented at the Search as Learning Workshop at the ACM SIGIR Conference, Pisa, Italy.
14.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
DehnM. J. (2014). Essentials of processing assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
16.
DeweyJ. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath.
17.
FlavellJ. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
18.
FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.MorrisR. D.LyonG. R. (2013). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: A hybrid model. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 33–50). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
HaynieJ. M.ShepherdD.MosakowskiE.EarleyP. C. (2010). A situated metacognitive model of the entrepreneurial mindset. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 217–229.
20.
HoltonE. F.NaquinS. (2005). A critical analysis of HRD evaluation models from a decision-making perspective. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 257–280.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), [seq.] Pub.L. No108-446, 118 Stat. 2467 (2004) [Amending 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et, PL. 105-17, 105th Congress.
KamphausR. W.PetoskeyM. D.RoweE. W. (2000). Current trends in psychological testing of children. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31, 155–164.
24.
KashapovM. M.SerafimovichI. V.PoshekhonovaY. V. (2017). Components of metacognition and metacognitive properties of forecasting as determinants of supra-situational pedagogical thinking. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 10, 80–94.
25.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (1983). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children [KABC]. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
26.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004a). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
27.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004b). Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement–Second Edition (KTEA-II). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
28.
KnowlesM. S.HoltonI. I. I. E. F.SwansonR. A. (2011). The adult learner: The definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (7th ed.). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
29.
KorkmanM.KirkU.KempS. (2007). NEPSY-II: Clinical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
30.
Lawrence-WilkesL.AshmoreL. (2014). The reflective practitioner in professional education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
31.
LeechN. L.OnquegbuzieA. J. (2011). Beyond constant comparison qualitative data analysis: Using NVivo. School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 70–84.
32.
MatherN.WendlingB. J. (2012). Linking cognitive assessment results to academic interventions for students with specific learning disabilities. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 553–581). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
33.
McWhorterR. R.EllingerA. E. (2018). Qualitative case study research: An initial primer. In WangV.ReioT.Jr. (Eds.), Handbook of research on innovative techniques, trends, and analysis for optimized research methods (pp. 185–201). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
34.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
35.
MerriamS. B.TisdellE. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
36.
MessickS. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35, 1012–1027.
37.
MitchellJ. R.ShepherdD. A.SharfmanM. P. (2011). Erratic strategic decisions: When and why managers are inconsistent in strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 683–704. doi:10.1002/smj.905
38.
NaglieriJ.DasJ. P.GoldsteinS. (2012). Planning, attention, simultaneous, successive: A cognitive-processing-based theory of intelligence. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 178–194). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
39.
PattonM. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
40.
PolleyW. J. (2015). The rhetoric of opportunity cost. American Economist, 60, 9–19.
RoskosK.VukelichC.RiskoV. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A critical review of literacy and general teacher education studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 33, 595–635.
43.
RoweS. S. (2012). Reading intervention and assessment acceptability: A literature review. School Psychology Forum: Research in Practice, 6, 77–88.
44.
RueterJ. A.McWhorterR. R.LambJ. H.DykesF. O. (2016). Updated perspectives on educational diagnosticians’ understanding of reading assessments. Current Issues in Education, 19(1). Retrieved from https://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1450
45.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ. E.BoltS. (2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
46.
SattlerJ. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations (5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Author.
47.
SattlerJ. M.DumontR.CoalsonD. L. (2016). Assessment of Children: WISC-V and WPPSI-IV. La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
48.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
49.
SchrankF. A.DeckerS.GarrutoJ. M. (2016). Essentials of WJ IV cognitive abilities assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
50.
SchrankF. A.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
51.
ShapiroE. S.EckertT. L. (1994). Acceptability of curriculum-based assessment by school psychologists. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 167–183.
52.
Sotelo-DynegaM.DixonS. G. (2014). Cognitive assessment practices: A survey of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 1031–1045.
53.
SternbergR. J. (1998). Metacognition, abilities, and developing expertise: What makes an expert student?Instructional Science, 26, 127–140.
54.
StockallN.DennisL. R. (2015). Seven basic steps to solving ethical dilemmas in special education: A decision-making framework. Education and Treatment of Children, 38, 329–344.
